@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Leelavathi, the unfortunate victim in this case, has been done away with, in a brutal attack allegedly made by the petitioners and another in a
broad-day light in a main bazar at Villapuram, Madurai, at about 8.30 a.m. on 23-4-1997, probably for having elected as a Lady Councillor for
Ward No. 59, in the Corporation Election at Madurai in Oct. 1996.
2. The petitioners herein are seeking grant of bail from this Court. There are totally six accused in this case. The petitioners are A-2, A-1, A-3 to
A-5 respectively. They are concerned with Cr. No. 334 of 1997 of Keerathurai Police Station, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341,
324 and 302, I.P.C.
3. The facts are these :-
(i) The first informant in this case Mr. V. K. Kuppusamy, is the husband of the victim Leelavathi. He is working as Tinker in eversilver polishing
shed. Both husband and wife were residing along with their three daughters in Nadar compound, Villapuram main road, Madurai. The victim
Leelavathi was a full time party worker and District Council Member of CPI (M) party.
(ii) In Oct. 1996, in the Corporation election conducted at Madurai Corporation, she contested as a candidate affiliated to CPM., for the 59th
ward of Madurai Corporation. One Valli, wife of Karinmalayan alias Annadurai (2nd petitioner) also contested in the same ward as DMK
candidate. There was a tough fight between them.
(iii) However, in a narrow margin the victim Leelavathi got elected. When she was declared elected at the counting centre., viz. at Medical College,
Madurai, by the Election Officer, after the counting was over, the first and second petitioners herein - Mathuramalingam and Kerimalanyan alias
Annadurai, the husband of the said Valli, the DMK candidate, quarrelled with the victim, as well as the Election Officer, objecting to the said
declaration. They also attempted to prevent the Election Officer, by creating a scene, from issuing necessary certificate, declaring that she got
elected. However, with the help of police the victim obtained necessary certificate from the Election Officer, and returned home.
(iv) On that night itself, the petitioners 1 and 2 and others came to the house of the victim and quarrelled with them. But on the intervention of
neighbours, the petitioners 1 and 2 and other men disbursed and went away.
(v) Since in the local area of Villapuram, there was no tap for drinking water, the victim Councillor, took effective steps for erecting pipelines for
drinking water in the entire area, and successfully completed the work. Due to this also, the petitioners, out of jealously, developed enmity with the
victim.
(vi) On 23-4-1997, at about 8.30 a.m. the victim Leelavathi went to a grocery shop situate near her house, and was purchasing groceries. At that
time, the first informant, her husband and his friends were talking together at the corner of the street. Suddenly, the petitioners along with another
armed with weapons - aruval, appeared at the scene, by coming over from east, and then began to cut the victim with aruval indiscriminately, and
caused injuries all over her body. On seeing this ghastly Sight, the first informant and others ran towards the victim. In the meantime, the victim
cried aloud, and fell down on the ground, in a pool of blood, and died instantaneously. All the petitioners and another ran towards east.
Immediately thereafter, at 10.00 a.m. the first informant gave a complaint to the respondent/police, who in turn registered the case in Cr. No. 334
of 1997, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, against, two named persons (the petitioners 1 and 2
herein) and four others.
(viii) During the course of inquest, the investigating agency came to know the names of other accused, who actually participated in the commission
of the crime along with the petitioner 1 and 2. The investigation conducted by the respondent, disclosed that the 1st petitioner Muthuramalingam
(A-2) armed with aruval cut the victim on the right side of the neck, the 2nd petitioner Karimalayan alias Annadurai (A-1) with aruval cut the
deceased on the right side of the neck the 3rd petitioner Murugan (A-3) with aruval cut the deceased on the cheek, right ear, right shoulder and
right hand, the 4th petitioner Murugan alias Soongu Murugan (A-4) with aruval repeatedly cut the deceased on the right and left hands, the 5th
petitioner Meenakshisundaram (A-5) and one Marudhu alias Nallamarudhu (A-6) were by surrounding the deceased, helping the other accused in
committing the murder of the deceased.
(viii) The accused were arrested on 24-4-1997 and 27-4-1997. During the course of investigation, identification parade was conducted on 27-5-
1997, and the eye witnesses in this case, correctly identified the petitioners and another.
(ix) At this stage, the petitioners have filed the present application before this Court, seeking bail.
4. Prior to the filing of this application, A-6 Marudhu @ Nallamarudhu, filed an application in Crl. O.P. No. 7259 of 1997, with similar prayer
before this Court, and the same was dismissed on 10-6-1997.
5. Mr. K. M. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that out of political enmity, a false case has been foisted against the
petitioners, and they are innocents. Learned counsel would further submit that the 2nd petitioner had sustained injuries on his scrotum, while he was
participating in kabadi tournament, some days prior to the occurrence, and he got himself admitted in a Hospital at Madurai, on 19-4-1997 and
got discharged only on 21-4-1997 at about 5.00 p.m. It is also submitted by learned counsel, that though the occurrence had taken place at 8.30
a.m. the complaint was lodged in the police station only at 10.00 a.m.
6. This application is vehemently opposed by learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State, by containing that this being a sensational
case, bail could not he granted to the petitioners, especially when they belong to the influential ruling X political party, and if bail granted, they
would abscond and flee from justice, and also tamper with the eye witnesses in this case. Learned Government Advocate would further submit,
that the second petitioner is involved in several criminal cases. The details of the cases registered against him are as follows :-
1. C-2 Keerathurai P.S. - Cr. No. 365/94 u/s 24 of TNP Act - C.C. No. 322 of 1995.
2. C-2 Keerathurai P.S. - Cr. No. 375/94 u/s 24 of TNP Act - C.C. No. 321 of 1995.
3. C-2 Keerathurai P.S. - Cr. No. 686/94 under Sections 448, 323, 506(ii) I.P.C. - C.C. No. 377 of 1995.
4. C-2 Keerathurai P.S. - Cr. No. 811/96 under Sections 147, 323 altered into 325 IPC read with 34, I.P.C. - C.C. No. 1093 of 1996.
7. The motive alleged in this case is that the wife of the second petitioner was defeated in the Councillor''s election by the victim Leelavathi, who
won the election by a narrow margin. It is quite shocking to see that the occurrence had taken place in a most cruel and brutal manner, when the
Councillor, who got elected only six months, ago, was standing in front of the grocery shop, and purchasing groceries, in the early hours, viz. it
about 8.30 a.m. in a bazaar, where people were walking around.
8. A perusal of the case diary and the counter would show that investigation has been done promptly and the accused persons were arrested
immediately, and on their confession, the weapons of the crime were also recovered.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced medical records, relating to the admission of the second petitioner (A-1) Karimalayan @
Annadurai, the husband of the opponent defeated candidate Valli, in Ramani Nursing Home, Madurai. The medical sheets would show that he was
admitted on 19-4-1997 and discharged on 23-4-1997 at 5.00 p.m. at his request. Though he was discharged, at his request on 23-4-1997, the
police were able to arrest him only on 27-4-1997.
10. When the investigating officer came to know that the 2nd petitioner herein was in hospital for some days, he rushed to the Ramani Nursing
Home, and examined the Doctor, regarding the admission of the 2nd petitioner herein. One Dr. Ravindran, attached to the said nursing home gave
a statement to the Inspector of Police, on 27-4-1997, stating that one Annadurai came and got himself admitted in the Nursing Home, complaining
stomach pain, and that so many tests were conducted on him, in order to know the reason for the pain, and that when he was in the hospital, he
was hale and healthy, and he could walk, go out and come back and, that on 23-4-1997 at 5.00 p.m. since the patient and his relations insisted for
discharge, he was discharged immediately.
11. In his statement, the Doctor would also say that ""Vernacular matter is omitted.
So, the statements given by the Doctor would reveal, that the second petitioner was not admitted for the reason that he sustained injury in his
scrotum, whereas he himself complained of pain in his stomach, and only for the purpose of conducting tests to know the reason for his pain, he
was admitted in the hospital, and as such, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, that the 2nd petitioner was hospitalised for the
injuries sustained by him in the scrotum is not correct. Furthermore, it is the specific assertion of the Doctor, that the 2nd petitioner while he was in
the Nursing Home, used to go out and come back. From this statement, the fact that the 2nd petitioner attempted to create record for the evidence
of alibi, cannot be ruled out.
12. A perusal of the statements and other records found available in this case would show that there is a prima facie case as against the petitioners
and another, for the offence of murder of the victim-Leelavathi.
13. The Apex Court, time and again held that the liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by the Court, nonetheless when a person is
accused of a serious offence like murder. However, as pointed out by the Apex Court, the liberty is to be secured through process of law which is
administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim, who lost her life and who feel helpless and believe that
there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private
retribution. Court should not be unduly influenced by the concept of liberty, disregarding the facts of the case. When persons are involved in an
offence of the present nature, they have to necessarily undergo indignity and lost liberty as an undertrial and it is a necessary consequence in every
criminal case, more particularly in a murder case.
14. In a conflict between social security and individual liberty. Court need not sacrifice security of the society at the alter of individual liberty. The
dare-devil attack on a elected Municipal lady Councillor in a public road, at the early hours of the day shows that in the event of their release, the
petitioners may also indulge in the activities of scaring the witnesses. In order to secure the interests of the society at large, and to repress crime, a
stringent view on wrong doers, especially when the second petitioner is having bad-antecedents, is a social necessity.
15. Therefore, I am of the view, that the petitioners who allegedly participated in the horrible attack on the unarmed woman Councillor, are not
entitled to bail, especially when the prosecution expressed the fear that the release of the petitioners on bail would result in their fleeing from justice
by abscondence, and would result in tampering of the witnesses.
16. In this context, some of the observation made by Justice Shivappa, a learned Judge of this Court in State by Superintendent of Police Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs. Adi Rajaram, , are quite relevant. The observation are :
Tampering may have two phases, one during investigation preventing the Investigation Agency from collecting the evidence and the other during
trial, preventing the prosecution from placing the evidence so collected before the Court. In fact, the second phase is more important than the first
phase. This is so because, investigation is not an end in itself. It is process which precedes a trial Evidence has to be collected, but the indictment
comes only after the evidence is placed before the Court appreciated and accepted. If by proper safeguards the evidence collected during
investigation is not allowed to be preserved and placed before the Court and if in the intervening stage, though the operation of extraneous forces
the evidence is allowed to be underlined or erased, the entire investigation becomes an exercise of futility and the guilty escape the arms of justice.
The possibility of the evidence being tampered is, therefore, serious aspect to which the Court has to give due consideration.
17. In the light of the above principles, I am of the view, that the petitioners are not entitled to bail till the eye witnesses in this case are examined by
the trial Court, otherwise, there is every possibility for these petitioners to tamper with the eye witnesses, as apprehended by the prosecution, in
view of the fact, that the second phase is more important that the first phase.
18. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
19. Petition dismissed.
